Are reviews of new models independent or not?

[VIA185]

Wow, Stationmaster! You've stirred up a hornet's nest! Did you start this on January 5 this year? Eight pages in just on 3 weeks - shows you how some folk like to review the reviewers! I wonder how many who commented know any of the reviewers, never mind all of them? There have been quite a few over the years, many of them no longer involved in reviewing models or working for magazines. Some of them no longer with us. Of course, it's easy to 'know' the on-line reviewers, much less easy to know those who write for magazines. 

I wrote my first review something like 60 years ago. I don't even remember what I reviewed - and it wouldn't really have been MY review because I was a16-year-old trainee writer and the Editor re-wrote almost every word. The first review I remember writing was for the GEM Ffestiniog 'Prince' kit. I built it and soon became aware that other magazines reviewed kits without building them and merely rehashed the manufacturer's publicity. I probably wrote a couple of dozen reviews before the published words were recognisably mine.

Halfway through my career, when I changed employers and joined a major international publishing company, I got sent on training courses. One course covered the whole business of libel, including the fact that a whiff of malice had cost a reviewer half a million quid! The lesson was simple - be careful what you write. So, yes, a good reviewer makes his points carefully, writes facts and makes clear what is just opinion. I suspect I've probably written more reviews than most in this business. Accurate description is all-important - it allows the reader to make up his own mind. Model reviewers who receive early review samples are lucky because they are reviewing before they are influenced by the comments and experience of others. And it's a fallacy to think we are influenced by deadlines (the implication presumably being that reviews are rushed). Nor are we drinking buddies with the manufacturers. I seldom have a review model in my hands for less than three weeks. In that time there's plenty of opportunity to examine and test run, have a day's rest and then repeat the process, several times. Meantime, I usually track down a book or two on the subject. Looking up details such as dimensions on the internet is a complete waste of time. I seldom find the details I'm looking for (try finding the width or height of a particular loco, for instance).  It'll take a while to check all the tech data, take measurements, and fill in the blanks in tabular matter. Then there will be a morning spent in the photographic studio. Finally, I read and re-read my work numerous times checking that what I've written is correct and can't be misinterpreted.

I've never knowingly done a hatchet job in a review. Steve Stratten and I did once persuade a prospective manufacturer NOT to launch his model because it was so awful - but he did ask for an opinion, and we wanted to avoid having to review it! (CJL)

 

[Farang]

I remember a review in MRC many, many years ago on the Triang-Hornby(?) King Arthur class, I think it was. It ended: "it is perfect in every way". It most certainly was not.

I read reviews in RM, HM and Model Rail. Model Rail was the only one to compare the dimensions of the model with the prototype. It is interesting to read reviews of the same model in all the  magazines. HM has large photographs so you can see the product in close up which is useful as a photograph is worth a thousand words. RM reviews are often written in a "house" style, the prose a bit stilted. I dropped the subscription to Model Rail and have just taken a punt on BRM. My first impression of BRM is not very positive, an unimaginative layout and lots of white space on the pages. My local WHS does not stock it. Had I seen it there I may not have bothered with the subscription but I'll give it a year. All are printed on flimsy paper. The only magazine with decent paper in my opinion is MRJ. Are model railway magazines good value for money? That is for the individual to decide.

[MarkSG]

24 minutes ago, Farang said:

I read reviews in RM, HM and Model Rail. Model Rail was the only one to compare the dimensions of the model with the prototype. It is interesting to read reviews of the same model in all the  magazines. HM has large photographs so you can see the product in close up which is useful as a photograph is worth a thousand words. 

 

You can see large photos of models on the manufacturers' and retailers' websites. While a magazine clearly needs to illustrate its reviews with photos, I'm not sure that's the most valuable part. I'm more interested in what the reviewers have to say, as that's something I can't get from a photo no matter how good the photo is.

 

As I've said before, I do think the magazines could usefully supplement their printed reviews with short videos on their websites (or their YouTube channels) of the reviewed models on their test tracks. That would be something which is genuinely different to what I could get from looking at a retailer/manufacturer website, and less timeconsuming to watch than wading through a vlog channel's preamble and unboxing before getting to the interesting bit. But a still photo of a pristine, out of the box model isn't really going to tell me a lot more than a bog standard catalogue photo.

[Phil Parker]

17 minutes ago, MarkSG said:

As I've said before, I do think the magazines could usefully supplement their printed reviews with short videos on their websites (or their YouTube channels) of the reviewed models on their test tracks. That would be something which is genuinely different to what I could get from looking at a retailer/manufacturer website, and less timeconsuming to watch than wading through a vlog channel's preamble and unboxing before getting to the interesting bit. But a still photo of a pristine, out of the box model isn't really going to tell me a lot more than a bog standard catalogue photo.

 

There are often supporting videos for BRM reviews. Photos - yes the manufacturers give you a nice 3/4 view (or side view from Hornby) but generally only one. And they don't normally flip it on it's side so you can see the underneath, or take the body off so you can look at the workings.

[melmoth]

1 hour ago, Farang said:

I remember a review in MRC many, many years ago on the Triang-Hornby(?) King Arthur class, I think it was. It ended: "it is perfect in every way". It most certainly was not.

I read reviews in RM, HM and Model Rail. Model Rail was the only one to compare the dimensions of the model with the prototype.

 

If you're thinking of the 1978 Hornby model of Sir Dinadan, then neither Hornby Magazine nor Model Rail reviewed it as they were not in existence then. You might therefore be conflating reviews of later models with that of the earlier model.

[Chris116]

28 minutes ago, melmoth said:

 

If you're thinking of the 1978 Hornby model of Sir Dinadan, then neither Hornby Magazine nor Model Rail reviewed it as they were not in existence then. You might therefore be conflating reviews of later models with that of the earlier model.

The quote you give says the review was in MRC which means Model Railway Constructor nothing to do with Hornby or Model Rail magazines.

[melmoth]

35 minutes ago, Chris116 said:

The quote you give says the review was in MRC which means Model Railway Constructor nothing to do with Hornby or Model Rail magazines.

 

Yes, that's exactly the point I'm making. The quote then goes on to make comparison with RM, HM and MR, implying that they all reviewed the same model, which - as was the point of my post -is extremely unlikely given that HM (originally started by Ian Allan to replace their MRC gap in the market) and MR had not even been thought of at the time of the original Hornby King Arthur model being issued. I have bound volumes of MRC and RM for 1978 which are not to hand right now, otherwise I'd be much better placed to make informed comment.

[RichardT]

1 hour ago, melmoth said:

 

Yes, that's exactly the point I'm making. The quote then goes on to make comparison with RM, HM and MR, implying that they all reviewed the same model, which - as was the point of my post -is extremely unlikely given that HM (originally started by Ian Allan to replace their MRC gap in the market) and MR had not even been thought of at the time of the original Hornby King Arthur model being issued. I have bound volumes of MRC and RM for 1978 which are not to hand right now, otherwise I'd be much better placed to make informed comment.

I’m not sure it does. The first paragraph is about the MRC review of “Sir Dinadan”.  The second paragraph is starting a new subject about which magazine’s reviews give prototype dimensions.
 

The problem is the ambiguous word “read” - you’ve read it as “read”, whereas I read it as “read”   😉😂

 

(the joys of English…)

 

RichardT

[melmoth]

11 minutes ago, RichardT said:

I’m not sure it does. The first paragraph is about the MRC review of “Sir Dinadan”.  The second paragraph is starting a new subject about which magazine’s reviews give prototype dimensions.
 

The problem is the ambiguous word “read” - you’ve read it as “read”, whereas I read it as “read”   😉😂

 

(the joys of English…)

 

RichardT

 

Yes, I agree. Although some of the scope for ambiguity with the post that I was originally responding to is that it isn't clearly split into paragraphs.  I would also say that if the second sentence is not intended to follow on in direct relation to the first sentence, then I would have expected it to say "Model Rail is the only one to compare the dimensions of a model/models with the prototype", rather than "Model Rail was the only one to compare the dimensions of the model with the prototype", which implies to me a reference to the content of the first sentence.

 

At this point however, I am probably close to starting a discussion about how many Simon Kohlers one can balance on the head of a 21 pin decoder.

[eldomtom2]

55 minutes ago, melmoth said:

At this point however, I am probably close to starting a discussion about how many Simon Kohlers one can balance on the head of a 21 pin decoder.

What scale are the Kohlers?

[RichardT]

16 minutes ago, eldomtom2 said:

What scale are the Kohlers?

TT-120, because N is "too fiddly".  Obvs.  🤐🤣

[melmoth]

19 minutes ago, eldomtom2 said:

What scale are the Kohlers?

 

In this context, I would consider the Kohler to be an abstract concept that is immaterial and, therefore, bears little weight. Its absolute scale would perhaps be determined the constant catalogue ratio of [A3/A4] multiplied by [BR 2mt/expected delivery date] . Or some such.
 

[adb968008]

On 08/01/2023 at 17:21, D9020 Nimbus said:

German magazines in general seem to concentrate on the underlying technology of the model in their reviews, the minimum and maximum speeds reached and compliance with NEM standards.

How very Germanic of them.

😁

 

 

[jjb1970]

Reviews can be split into objective and subjective.

 

Objective is stuff like measuring to establish dimensional accuracy, testing functionality, measuring performance etc. These aspects are not opinions, they should reflect facts.

 

Subjective is stuff like does it look right, does the reviewer like it, these are opinions. And like any opinion, we all have our own opinion and those of other people are irrelevant if you like something.

 

Then there is the grey area of prototypical accuracy. That should be objective, but how many times have people worked themselves up over an inaccurate model only for somebody to find a photograph which demonstrates that for a moment in time at least the model does reflect the prototype? While it is very easy to say a train was painted this colour, had this type of wheel, the engine was this type etc etc it's much more difficult to say that a train was never painted a particular colour, never had such wheels or that it was always painted a given colour or always had a particular type of engine etc as making a definitive statement of that kind is almost always based on assumption and extremely difficult to verify (it's sort of like the old chestnut about universal negatives, how can you genuinely validate a universal negative position?).

 

In most fields where reviews exist the objective part is the more useful, but the subjective the more entertaining to read.

[Oldddudders]

But the great advantage of the Internet is that even if the magazine gave a model a thumbs up, simply post your pleasure in having acquired it, and some learned soul will post telling you why it's a heap of poo, because this, that and the other feature are all so wrong it's the end of the world.

 

Raining upon others' parades is a way of life for some.  

[AY Mod]

15 minutes ago, Oldddudders said:

Raining upon others' parades is a way of life for some.  

 

Not just a way of life; a whole existential purpose to parade their superiority at every given chance in the absence of having real-life friends. Sad.

[Erichill16]

12 hours ago, Oldddudders said:

 

Raining upon others' parades is a way of life for some.  

When I see or hear this happen it always reminds me of a line in Big Country’s song, ‘In  a Big Country’.

’I never took the smile away from anyones face’ and I wish more people would have that attitude.